@@Brockliy sure they did but UK did almost everything look at 2:50 UK went on a full invasion of japanese mainland, of course there's US ships rounding japan but there's little land forces helping british cuz US is not in the allies, also US is not as chad as BRITANNIA so they prefer to invade small islands xd
And what about Britain? The USSR defeated the millionth fortified Kwantung Army of Japan. In 2 weeks. 1300000 people. And they captured the Kuril Islands, or rather returned what was lost in 1905. Of course they tell you that nuclear bombs stopped the war? 😂😂😂 In fact, the Japanese emperor was afraid that the USSR would capture Hokkaido and something else. You look at the chronology, after the bombing a month passed before the signing of the peace treaty 😉
I can't get these scenarios. USA is at war with Germany: USSR is destroyed in two years. USA is neutral: Soviets: Kurks tier defences all along the front. Anyway keep up the good work Andromeda.
@@JJMK7092 Yeah you're probably right. Also I noticed that Axis victory highly dopends on th fact if german and italian navy were annihilated in the initial phase of the war. If so, they are unable to invade mainland UK and the war is pretty much lost.
Harry Truman: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
@@sykles8589 Yeah, most accurate comment I’ve read. 😂Same thing goes for USSR as well. If the Allies defeats Russia ,AKA USSR, it literally gets divided into like 15 states. It’s strange, yet annoying for players like me...
Yes indeed, historically the Soviet army was already beginning to push Germany out of Ukriane and into Eastern Poland by late 1943 and early 1944 with Operation Saturn, Operation Uranus and Operation bagration, even before the USA started its invasion in France in June 1944... Which kinda indicates that the Soviet army was already able to take on Germany alone all by itself even without the Western Allies support, which is not much surprising considering the Soviet Army had 60,000 tanks by that time while Germany only had around 30,000 tanks by that time... (and also much more men and artillery too of course!)
@@xAlexTobiasxB "even before the USA started its invasion." Bruh the d day landings had fewer american ships, fewer american planes, fewer american troops and fewer american commanders than the British (though the difference in troops and planes is not as pronounced as the difference in ships and commanders). It was an allied invasion, with slight British dominance. Though I agree with your overall assessment that the Soviets were capable of soloing the germans. Another big factor is that the germans had too little oil to run those 30,000 tanks, whereas the Soviets never had any shortage of natural resources.
@@mappingshaman5280 the British could never have achieved the dday landing successfully alone without the help of US troops and tanks though. And it's not just the initial day of dday landing alone, but remember everything that happend after that the invasion landing, more and more American troops can poring into Europe. The famous battle of the bulge for example was mainly an American battle and victory with almost no British presence. Meanehile the British had some very awkward failures at the Falaise pocket and Operation Goodwood... Also the famous battles at the Remagen Bridge and Rhine river were also mostly American battles. In the end it was the American troops that pushed first into cologne Germany, before the British. We all know that famous battle scene where an american M26 Pershing tank shoots a German Panther Panzer at the cologne cathedral... And not to forget the invsison in Italy that happened a year before in 1943 alreday, was also mainly by American troops only and no British. This invasion in Italy forced the Germans to relocate some units from the eastern front to secure Italy, further easing up the eastern fornt for the Soviet assault... But of course I don't want to take anything away from the British or even Canadians, Australians and new Zealand too, they were of very essential help without them the Americans would like wise not been so susscessful either. In the end it was a team effort of all factions together. But the Soviets still had the biggest part in defeating the German army obviously, which isn't really that surprising, considering afterall they fought the biggest part of the German army for the longest time in the war (and by that I mean a direct open ground war, not just some small skirmishes here and there)...
@@rajeshparihar2521 Because British and Canadian troops had the most combat experience. By the time of the Normandy breakout, 2 out of 3 Allied troops in France were Americans.
Yep. Many people keep on forgetting the only reason why the USSR didn’t crumble to the 3rd Reich was because the US pumped over 180 billion dollars (in today’s terms) worth of aid into them. Military equipment, materials, civilian goods, etc. They started this before the US joined the war officially. Heck even the Soviets admitted that without Lend-Lease they would’ve been screwed.
The Soviet Union proved themselves that they don't need US intervention , they held the Germans as longer as Possible , because has almost Infinity Manpower and Resourches . Germany would lost the War anyway because they don't have as much the Soviets have in game .
@@drogobartholy5532 not depicted is the mass food shortages which would occur without American aid. trend still going on to this day, just see Ukraine lol
@@siyacer I said in game not in real life , i know the Soviets had problems with Supplies in Real Life and Desorganization because of Stalin's Purges on the Military , but in the game the Soviets held this time , in Hearts of Iron 4 the Soviet Union is not a easy Nation too beat specially if goes Ai x Ai and one more thing i'm not even including the Russian-Ukrainian War on this . In my opinion Biden , Keresnky and Putin are all totally wrong with this war ! I'm agaisnt feeding more war too make the Russians and Ukrainians suffer even more is stupid they should white-peace and Biden is not collaborating on make them have peace . The World is suffering because of this war Biden collaborated with this and he should be impeached because of that .
I thought when Spain joined the Axis, that that was going to be the tipping point. Not that Spain is particularly powerful, but even a one time boost of divisions from Spain I thought would tip the balance. UK had it handled though
Did they take in account of the jet, the v1 and v2 rockets, guided missiles , the stealth bomber, and the rest of the advanced weapons that the Germans had?
The Germans never had a functioning “stealth bomber”, and their worthless “wonder weapons” were not advanced enough or in great enough number to do any more than use up limited German production capacity.
@@lochi1250 they were withing a few months of deploying the flying wing. They had jet planes which did enter into combat. They also had remote controlled planes and missiles, on and on and on
It appears they did, Germany lost while pouring resources into wunderwaffe of little to no real value while gradually losing the fight to more competently run economies
I'm not sure what algorithm was applied here, but in Nov 1941 Germans were already near the Moscow, with or without USA help. According to this map they are at the border of Poland. This whole timelapse is a joke.
Irl without any US intervention(no lend lease, no war declaration, no military aid to the uk) the Axis would have won. But if the US didn't intervene directly, so no war declaration but with lend lease and other military aid allies would still have won because after Stalingrad the Soviets would nearly have had the strength to take out the Axis alone, and after kursk Soviets could do just that.
Exactly. A fact about WW2 that is often overlooked is that it was mostly a war of resources. Strip the other Allies of US resources and the Axis wins, full stop. Soviet soldiers and American resources were the combination that won the war.
The germans wouldn't have won even without US intervention. The Soviets had thousands more tanks than them and even if they didn't, the germans had no oil to fuel the tanks they had, whereas the Soviets had basically infinite oil.
@@mappingshaman5280 The USSR would've starved to death and would've had zero materials to make Equipment without the US.... Your logic is very fucking flawed..
Technically Japan declared war and had sent the message out but it didn’t get to the Americans in time during the Pearl Harbor bombings meaning it was a “surprise “ attack that wasn’t meant to be a surprise if you get what I mean.
Seems a bit odd that germany doesn't push that far into russia and Italy doesn't provide a significant push even when they don't have to worry about the Americans.
I do not see the UK conquwereing parts of France. THe UK tried this several times before they landed with the US in Normandy and always failed. And that parts of Germany would have been conquered from the Netherlands and also this kind of splitting up of Germany also would have been highly unlikely.
The uk never tried anything like D day before d day. D day was the largest naval invasion in history. The only things the uk did in France before 1944, were commando raids, which were not intended to create a point to invade.
Helps that the AI is awful at defending coastlines and only understands attrition warfare leaving Germany desperately short of men and equipment after a year or more fighting the USSR so that any landing is faced by only a few divisions with any reinforcements being taken from the Eastern Front and extremely worn down (usually only 50% equipment). In that state, Britain with Australian, Canadian, South African and New Zealand forces can easily take back France. And if troops from the Raj aren't fighting the Japanese and they come to Europe, it becomes far worse for the German situation. ... I've watched way too many of these time lapses.
Does this simulation take into account policies like American lend lease? Most of why the soviets were able to hold off the Germans and beat them back and why d-day even happened is from American resources.
"Most of why the Soviets were able to hold off the germans and beat them back" No most of that is because A: the german logistics were even worse than the Russian logistics in the modern invasion of Ukraine. And B: the germans had fewer tanks than the Soviets and even less oil to make the tanks actually move. "And why D day even happened is from american resources." Most ships and planes used in the d day landings were British. 66% of warships, 75% of landing craft, around 50% of the aircraft (which considering the British and Americans weren't the only ones involved means it was the biggest contribution because there was also Canadian aircraft).
The importance of lend-lease is completely overstated in western history. The Soviets received 84% of the aid after they had already won at Stalingrad and Kursk. The aid was helpful in speeding up the end of the war. Without it, the Soviets, in all likelihood, would still have taken Berlin, albeit 12 to 18 months later. The American historian David M. Glantz points this fact out.
@@gregbeyer9507 A mention of a single academic without any sourcing does not an argument make. I'll take the assessments given by the two men who knew best what was going on, thanks.
Can you imagine if you find a world power to invade Egypt with France and Israel and run out of there when the USA told you to? , we killed 1 immortal being and dominated you lmao
@@LRomano the suez was a diplomatic defeat, not a military one. Every major war Italy fights it loses, unless its using poison gas against african tribals. In 1895, Ethiopia defeated Italy. In ww1, the austro Hungarian empire, which itself was an incompetent military, held the italians at the battles of isonzo 11 times. In ww2 9 french men defended point saint louis against 5000 italians. The italians lost 700 men before they finally won. The British immediately captured 133,000 italians in operation compass. The name "erwin rommel" is the only name anyone bothers to learn for the axis side of the african front. the italian army, which before the germans bailed it out had 25 divisions in albania going against 13 greek divisions , got pushed back into albania. you dominated a bunch of disunited tribals 2000 years ago, whoopde fucking do. Wake me up when you can point to a war you won without your allies bailing you out or using poison gas in living memory.
"I don't know when the two types of poverty, will be understood as self inflicted, though it would have been nice, if it had happened when I was wealthy"
Lol France was unable to defeat Germany without US help and Churches was literally begging to US for help even Soviet Union was going to nuts without US support so if US remained neutral most likely Germany would have won.
What I think would have happend in the best case scenario for Nazi Germany is that D day never happens and they are able to hold back Soviets for a litlle longer, but Berlin still falls and Nazi's surrender there and then instead of retreating to France just like in our timeline (in this scenario im talking about Courland and Alps). So France and Norway is handed over to Soviets and they establish a comunist puppet regime there. The Carnation Revolution in Portugal happens earlier and later on they overthrow Franco Spain and Switzerland into communsim aswell. So basically hole of Europe would be communist with the exeption of UK, Ireland, Sweden and Finland and Europeans still would be living under communism. After that it's unclear to say would Finland be invaded again or would they have been backed by the US later on. The same questiom could later on also go to the rest of free democratic countries.
In my games the sovietunion allways gets steamrolde by germany even on max strenghte level they bearly make it and writhout the allias they dommde And china is under japanes control by late 1942
Even Stalin said at USSR wouldn't have beaten Nazis without USA's help USA for example gave or sold 14 million boots 400 thousand trucks 14 thousand planes and alot more to USSR
without lend lease, Soviet union would've collapsed. Stalin and Zkukov, Both admitted it several times after the war.. Soviet Didn't have a much of a chance Against Germany without foreign supplies
nothing would be, nothing would change if Hitler was defeated, there would be freedom and joy, there would be no threats, there would be no nnato, there would be no hatred ...
How does the UK survive without US aid? We had the lend lease act but eventually the US citizen would have asked to stop defending the ships and forcing UK to pay for the supplies
Possibly if the UK withdrew all its troops from the Far East and brought all ANZAC troops to Europe. Of course, that’s based on the US taking on and defeating Japan on their own (and thereby stopping invasions of India, south-east Asia and Australia). Also, the UK would be stronger if they didn’t have to supply the USSR and let the USSR take an even bigger hit before making their counter offensive.
It would be interesting to see how anyone could come to that conclusion. Since the British never got saved by the Americans. The Battle of Britain saved the British during WW2. Also, America gave no significant amount of support to Britain during the Battle of Britain (1940). America did not begin the lend-lease until long after the Battle of Britain was over (March 1941). Also, after the fall of France in early 1940, Hitler offered a peace deal to the British, which would allow the British to remain Independent of the Third Reich and keep their Empire. Following the German defeat in the Battle of Britain, Hitler cancelled Germany’s plan for invading Britain (September 1940) and turned on the USSR, along with more focus on the North Africa campaigns. The campaigns in North Africa and the USSR were primarily due to Germany’s desperate need for oil. However, Britain defeated the Axis forces at the Second Battle of El Alamein, and the Soviets defeated the Germans at Stalingrad (both without any significant aid or assistance from the USA). The defeats here meant Germany would never have had the opportunity to get the oil needed for winning the war. Therefore the USA did nothing that gave them the right to claim they saved the British during WW2.
Germany does not magically have oil because the Soviets don't have food (which they could likely buy from someone else e.g japan). The germans lost because they didn't have oil, not because of soviet superiority in anything aside from that commodity.
Just AI messed up China invasion badly, they should have it won and finished before they join ww2. But they were still fighting therewhen UK just landed on empty islands and won lol.
You allow the US to defend against Japan, but you seem to forget that Germany declared war on the US, making America the defender against the Nazis. But you don't allow the US to defend?
@@doger6531 that’s a big claim tho. They did help of course, but I doubt Germany would have won in the end. Anyways, we can’t possibly know what the outcome would have been.
@@lordium1848 I mean it’s true I saw the stats and before the USA joined the war the economy’s and industry’s of the Allies and the axis were equal when the U.S. joined it went massively in favor of the allies also Stalin himself said without the Americans they would have lost he said the United States is a country of machines without the machines we received via lend lease we would have lost the war and other Soviet officials said the same and America was giving more lend lease to Britain than the USSR and this was just a small island with 40 million people compared to a big 160 million people in the USSR so without there lend lease to the island… well it wouldn’t have ended well
I think if usa didn't involve than japan will take over Birtish Raj with the help of Azad Hind fauj and gift whole Indian subcontinent to Azad Hind fauj acording to their agriment
Azad hind only had 45k soldiers. Japan couldn't even completely take over Myanmar, and not a single American troop was in Burma. At best without america they would fully take Burma and then get stuck on the brahmaputra.
30 gennaio 2023 17:13 100% Sul divano a casa mia Giorno 83 dell' anno scolastico 2022/2023(escludendo festività e weekend) Lunedì Sveglia 6:20 Ieri sera pizza rucola, bresaola e grana da nonno Ieri stato al campetto di Premariacco e vinto il torneo con Kyle e Vinci No Blasutig quindi usciti prima e andati in palestra
Japan only ran rough shod through the Pacific because the US implemented "Plan Dog". We fought a defensive war in the Pacific giving priority to the war in Europe. If the US was able to concentrate all of it's forces and war material production in Asia Japan would have been contained much sooner.
Japan got bogged down in both China and Burma without american assistance in those regions. The only places they were able to take over were the american occupied phillipines (funny how the so called super hero of the ww2 couldn't defend an island chain bigger than the uk), Malaysia and the Dutch east indies whose colonial government in the Netherlands had already been conquered by Germany.
@@mappingshaman5280 almost like it's hard to defend against a surprise attack from an attacker who's thousands of miles away from you in a war you didn't anticipate
@@mappingshaman5280 It's funny how the US military was ranked 16th in the world at the start of the war (Portugal was ranked higher). Why didn't France and the UK ask Portugal to win the war? Why didn't they just win the war before it started? They were the world's largest militaries at the time but when Germany invaded Poland they fought a phoney war for 8 months allowing the Germans to build their forces. Let's look at a quote from the wiki article on the "Sitzkrieg". "At the Nuremberg trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."
Without the U.S. fighting Germany the war would definitely have dragged on maybe 2 yrs longer. But the outcome would be the same with Germany losing. Germany just runs out of soldiers.
From what I see, you're saying the war would have ended pretty much the same with/without the U.S., which is ridiculous. The U.S. beat the best army (Germany) and best navy (Japan) on the planet, at the same time, and at opposite ends of the globe. They had help or course, but without their intervention the world would be a much different place right now.
Nope, it was the red army that broke the Solun front and went to Berlin walking. America was great in Pacific thought but I don't agree with nuclear Bombing of Japan
@@angelina6543 If you haven't already, then you should listen to Dan Carlin's Logical Insanity. He discusses the morality of the atomic bombings of Japan. You can't find it on TH-cam, but it's on the Internet Archive. It's either episode 42 or 43, I can't remember.
muy lejos del escenario hipotetico sobre si los Estado Unidenses se mantubieran neutrales, ya que los sovieticos hubieran caido y Gran Bretaña se hubiese aislado quedandose solo en una guerra perdida.
Credit to Domweasel for the comment: Soviet industry outproduced Germany though out the war. They built 35,000 T-34-76s and 23,000 T-34-85s. The Germans produced just 5700 Panzer IIIs and 8500 Panzer IVs throughout the entire war and German generals like Guderian, Jodl, Kleist and Manstein all declared the T-34 to be vastly superior. The Germans built 1000 Tigers; the Soviets built 3000 IS-2s. Remove American materials delivered to the USSR and you still have the Soviets producing over twice as many tanks as the Germans did. The same was true for aircraft; the Soviets replaced all the aircraft they lost in 1941 (More planes than the entire Luftwaffe) and by the end of '42; outnumbered the Luftwaffe 3 to 1. Remove lend-lease aircraft from Britain and the USA, and the advantage is 2 to 1. And of course there was oil. The USSR had the Caucasus oilfields while Germany was reliant on Romanian and synthetic oil, leaving them drastically short throughout the conflict. German aircraft were frequently limited in how many sorties they could fly a day by the availability of fuel; something the Soviets never had to worry about. What American lend-lease did was speed up the Soviet victory. The massive advances they made after Kursk into Ukraine and the huge success of Operation Bagration in '44 would have been impossible without the legions of Detroit-built trucks the Soviets used to transport men and supplies. While the German primary transport vehicle was the horse and cart, the Soviets had tens of thousands of American lorries ferrying what they needed while they rebuilt the railway lines. Without these vehicles, their offensives would have been far more modest.
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj Remove American materials and a huge number of men sent to the front have to stay and work in the factories and work the farms. No matter how you slice it the soviets DON'T produce near as many tanks, guns and planes AND they are woefully undermanned if they get no lend-lease from America. They would NOT enjoy the material advantage they did without the USA.
@@tremedar I really love how you just ignored the stats and the incorporated the idea which i just proved was wrong. This is exactly why ive grown to dislike nationalism in the US because its not like the normal good nationalism or patriotism that you see in europe and other countries such as the phillippines. A lot of americans are "nationalistic" (reminds me of nazism ngl) to the point where they will over play everything and pretend their country is perfect aswell as claim credit for things they didnt do. Fact is, the US equipment (especially trucks) definitely helped the Soviets and made the war end quicker, however the Soviets would have won no matter what since they simply were too powerful. The germans had awoken a collossus beast of production and manpower the US couldnt even match. I myself am swedish, and by nationality Russia has always been our arch nemesis like many nations so i have no reason to lie. Respect other countries in the areas they are good at and dont lie about the areas your own country is bad at. Delusion is thinking that the US impacted the course of ww2. Germany would have lost even if the US didnt enter at all, however the US definitely helped a shitton, take pride in that, but do not lie. If not for the soviets, we would have lost the war and europe aswell as the US would be speaking German.
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj ... And both Britain, and the Soviets would've starved to death, would have no material support, no trucks, Britain wouldn't have an Airforce and several thousand tanks, Arty, and more......
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj False? Don't you fujcking realize that the US provided more support than any other country during ww2? Sure, the Soviets out-produced the Germans... but their Equipment was total shit and prone to breaking down: Without US Supplies, like spare parts, and food (As well as clothing, boots, equipment, guns, and more bullets than anyone thought possible to produce...)... You severely overestimate IRL ww2, especially the Soviets, without American support...
remember America out produced every other allied country on earth in ww2, including the soviet union. America also supplied the soviet union quite a lot. just because the soviets made up a large portions of those who died doesn't mean they necessarily contributed that much proportionally.
@Gilyazova A Same year Britain finished paying its war debts to the USA. Financially hamstrung the UK so badly that the Empire was abandoned and many African colonies were pretty much left to fend for themselves with no proper transferal of power resulting in many dissolving into bloody, prolonged civil wars.
@G A You are correct, but you do forget that most (Estimates range from 70 to 90%) of the material worth given by the US was forgiven... Also, I'm pretty sure Russia and Britain both agree that they'd rather be in debt than controlled by the Nazis
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
The paradox ai is about as historically accurate as Star Wars.
Hey I find your lack of faith disturbing. Star Wars is a historical documentary 😄.
yeah it seems like the soviets always underperform vis a vis real life
@@HappyCatholicDane ah yes Darth Hitler the exterminator
@@HappyCatholicDane
*Refuses to elaborate further, leaves*
@@kilerman6969 You better run, or I, Darth HappyDane, will use the Force on you 😄.
USA: Is neutral
UK: “Well I’ll do it myself then”
*single handedly takes out Japan*
the usa fought japan in this
(beginning intro)
@@Brockliy sure they did but UK did almost everything look at 2:50 UK went on a full invasion of japanese mainland, of course there's US ships rounding japan but there's little land forces helping british cuz US is not in the allies, also US is not as chad as BRITANNIA so they prefer to invade small islands xd
Wouldn't the third reich attack UK again if they received the news of UK attacking Japan full force?
And what about Britain? The USSR defeated the millionth fortified Kwantung Army of Japan. In 2 weeks. 1300000 people. And they captured the Kuril Islands, or rather returned what was lost in 1905. Of course they tell you that nuclear bombs stopped the war? 😂😂😂 In fact, the Japanese emperor was afraid that the USSR would capture Hokkaido and something else. You look at the chronology, after the bombing a month passed before the signing of the peace treaty 😉
0:28 - 0:54 I love how one division in Turkey cannot decide where to go.
It's their quick reaction force, gotta keep m well-trained with being on the move.
He’s just flattening the terrain
Lmao
It ended up choosing Turkey's west coast
@@Sceptonic bruh spoiler alert
I can't get these scenarios.
USA is at war with Germany: USSR is destroyed in two years.
USA is neutral: Soviets: Kurks tier defences all along the front.
Anyway keep up the good work Andromeda.
The ai is both bad and unpredictable, don't question it too much
@@JJMK7092 exactly.
@@JJMK7092 Yeah you're probably right. Also I noticed that Axis victory highly dopends on th fact if german and italian navy were annihilated in the initial phase of the war. If so, they are unable to invade mainland UK and the war is pretty much lost.
Harry Truman: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible"
And China somehow survived??
(Edit: Oh I didn't realize the British landed in mainland Japan)
Why? Why does Britain ALWAYS release Occtania within France?
They got that historical grudge
in a peace deals democratic AI is having a fetish of freeing all the possible countries. It's in their code
Stinky
@@sykles8589 Yeah, most accurate comment I’ve read. 😂Same thing goes for USSR as well. If the Allies defeats Russia ,AKA USSR, it literally gets divided into like 15 states. It’s strange, yet annoying for players like me...
The democratic AI sees a potential releasable nation and thinks it has to be released because muh oppression or something lol.
I felt that the Soviets were stronger than usual in this gameplay
literally not strong enough, they holded off the germans despite 80% of the germans military force being used against them
The Soviets were most likely with all researched..!
Yes indeed, historically the Soviet army was already beginning to push Germany out of Ukriane and into Eastern Poland by late 1943 and early 1944 with Operation Saturn, Operation Uranus and Operation bagration, even before the USA started its invasion in France in June 1944... Which kinda indicates that the Soviet army was already able to take on Germany alone all by itself even without the Western Allies support, which is not much surprising considering the Soviet Army had 60,000 tanks by that time while Germany only had around 30,000 tanks by that time... (and also much more men and artillery too of course!)
@@xAlexTobiasxB "even before the USA started its invasion." Bruh the d day landings had fewer american ships, fewer american planes, fewer american troops and fewer american commanders than the British (though the difference in troops and planes is not as pronounced as the difference in ships and commanders). It was an allied invasion, with slight British dominance.
Though I agree with your overall assessment that the Soviets were capable of soloing the germans. Another big factor is that the germans had too little oil to run those 30,000 tanks, whereas the Soviets never had any shortage of natural resources.
@@mappingshaman5280 the British could never have achieved the dday landing successfully alone without the help of US troops and tanks though. And it's not just the initial day of dday landing alone, but remember everything that happend after that the invasion landing, more and more American troops can poring into Europe. The famous battle of the bulge for example was mainly an American battle and victory with almost no British presence. Meanehile the British had some very awkward failures at the Falaise pocket and Operation Goodwood... Also the famous battles at the Remagen Bridge and Rhine river were also mostly American battles. In the end it was the American troops that pushed first into cologne Germany, before the British. We all know that famous battle scene where an american M26 Pershing tank shoots a German Panther Panzer at the cologne cathedral...
And not to forget the invsison in Italy that happened a year before in 1943 alreday, was also mainly by American troops only and no British. This invasion in Italy forced the Germans to relocate some units from the eastern front to secure Italy, further easing up the eastern fornt for the Soviet assault...
But of course I don't want to take anything away from the British or even Canadians, Australians and new Zealand too, they were of very essential help without them the Americans would like wise not been so susscessful either. In the end it was a team effort of all factions together.
But the Soviets still had the biggest part in defeating the German army obviously, which isn't really that surprising, considering afterall they fought the biggest part of the German army for the longest time in the war (and by that I mean a direct open ground war, not just some small skirmishes here and there)...
I’m impressed the UK was able to one hold on to Africa two naval invade Japan and 3 lead a dday where they do most of the work
Dont forget that the uk won the battle of britain before the us joined, a large scale naval invasion was going to happen either way
Uh the d day was basically 60 percent uk forces
@@rajeshparihar2521
Because British and Canadian troops had the most combat experience. By the time of the Normandy breakout, 2 out of 3 Allied troops in France were Americans.
Actually the u.s.a supported them because they were only at war with japan
@@DomWeasel this look like real life?
Neutral would also be not supplying anything to Russia to keep them from collapsing in the beginning
Not supplying anything to Nazi Germany either
That's why I'm saying lend lease still happened in this situation
Don't forget that American capitalists armed Hitler
Yep. Many people keep on forgetting the only reason why the USSR didn’t crumble to the 3rd Reich was because the US pumped over 180 billion dollars (in today’s terms) worth of aid into them. Military equipment, materials, civilian goods, etc.
They started this before the US joined the war officially.
Heck even the Soviets admitted that without Lend-Lease they would’ve been screwed.
Really?
I've often seen gameplays in which Germany wins with the USA as an additional opponents and now that they don't get involved Germany loses?
They didn’t even push towards Leningrad or Stalingrad
The Soviet Union proved themselves that they don't need US intervention , they held the Germans as longer as Possible , because has almost Infinity Manpower and Resourches . Germany would lost the War anyway because they don't have as much the Soviets have in game .
@@drogobartholy5532 not depicted is the mass food shortages which would occur without American aid. trend still going on to this day, just see Ukraine lol
@@siyacer I said in game not in real life , i know the Soviets had problems with Supplies in Real Life and Desorganization because of Stalin's Purges on the Military , but in the game the Soviets held this time , in Hearts of Iron 4 the Soviet Union is not a easy Nation too beat specially if goes Ai x Ai and one more thing i'm not even including the Russian-Ukrainian War on this . In my opinion Biden , Keresnky and Putin are all totally wrong with this war ! I'm agaisnt feeding more war too make the Russians and Ukrainians suffer even more is stupid they should white-peace and Biden is not collaborating on make them have peace . The World is suffering because of this war Biden collaborated with this and he should be impeached because of that .
My heart jumped when Ive seen Yugoslavia pop up back again
I thought when Spain joined the Axis, that that was going to be the tipping point. Not that Spain is particularly powerful, but even a one time boost of divisions from Spain I thought would tip the balance. UK had it handled though
France, not so much.
Did they take in account of the jet, the v1 and v2 rockets, guided missiles , the stealth bomber, and the rest of the advanced weapons that the Germans had?
The Germans never had a functioning “stealth bomber”, and their worthless “wonder weapons” were not advanced enough or in great enough number to do any more than use up limited German production capacity.
@@lochi1250 they were withing a few months of deploying the flying wing. They had jet planes which did enter into combat. They also had remote controlled planes and missiles, on and on and on
It appears they did, Germany lost while pouring resources into wunderwaffe of little to no real value while gradually losing the fight to more competently run economies
@@bewbies1 if the war had lasted 6 more months, there would have been a totally different outcome.
@@peachesrambo4037 Germany would have been nuked? that's true
WW2 But Germany is Neutral
That means WW2 would start by the Soviet Union declaring war on Poland .
I'm not sure what algorithm was applied here, but in Nov 1941 Germans were already near the Moscow, with or without USA help. According to this map they are at the border of Poland. This whole timelapse is a joke.
It is a videogame chill out
The one thing that no talked about is HOW THE HECK DID THE SOVIETS GET SOME OF FRENCH AFRICA IN THE TREATY!!
A little trolling
Irl without any US intervention(no lend lease, no war declaration, no military aid to the uk) the Axis would have won. But if the US didn't intervene directly, so no war declaration but with lend lease and other military aid allies would still have won because after Stalingrad the Soviets would nearly have had the strength to take out the Axis alone, and after kursk Soviets could do just that.
FINALLY: SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!
Glad someone said it.
Exactly. A fact about WW2 that is often overlooked is that it was mostly a war of resources. Strip the other Allies of US resources and the Axis wins, full stop. Soviet soldiers and American resources were the combination that won the war.
The germans wouldn't have won even without US intervention. The Soviets had thousands more tanks than them and even if they didn't, the germans had no oil to fuel the tanks they had, whereas the Soviets had basically infinite oil.
@@mappingshaman5280 The USSR would've starved to death and would've had zero materials to make Equipment without the US.... Your logic is very fucking flawed..
My understanding is the US declared on only Japan and then Germany declared on the US. If Hitler has just left Japan on its own, this could happen.
Yes and no. After Pearl Harbor, it was only a matter of time for the US to declare war on Germany, too, Hitler only did it preemptively.
Technically Japan declared war and had sent the message out but it didn’t get to the Americans in time during the Pearl Harbor bombings meaning it was a “surprise “ attack that wasn’t meant to be a surprise if you get what I mean.
Please show the factions when the war is over.
What we learned is:
USA's involvement in any war is chaos
everyone should have learnt thzat
no
Perfection
@@VyndakistOfficial yessir
@@ezekiel440 ??
I'd hate to say this but if usa didn't enter WW2 gremany would have dominated
Agree
Finally, another sane person
Source: Just trust me dude
Not really as they didn't when the us wasn't in the war.
Good ending: No Cold War
bad ending: soviets now can do anything they want
@@H3rraM4juri that's just the good ending
@@marysartr yeah ours ending
Not that good: the british Great Game continues. So it just switching some roles.
the worst ending: we all live in simulation
Seems a bit odd that germany doesn't push that far into russia and Italy doesn't provide a significant push even when they don't have to worry about the Americans.
I do not see the UK conquwereing parts of France. THe UK tried this several times before they landed with the US in Normandy and always failed. And that parts of Germany would have been conquered from the Netherlands and also this kind of splitting up of Germany also would have been highly unlikely.
The uk never tried anything like D day before d day. D day was the largest naval invasion in history. The only things the uk did in France before 1944, were commando raids, which were not intended to create a point to invade.
The uk never tried this besides at dday.
"What if USA was neutral during WWII". What so, the first 3 years of the war?
The part where they were getting their ass kicked by Germany, yes.
*Technically* true but you kinda forget Ships-for-Bases and Lend-Lease...
Could you do a, What if the UK had fallen in the Battle of Britain?
they kind of were neutral
as far as im concerned germany declared war on the usa
thats cause they did, Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Habor
"Can I have Romania?"
"Okay"
😂😂😂 Wouldn't gone that way.... No way
Damn this video came in my b-day :D
I’m surprised the UK can still cause D-day without U.S help
Helps that the AI is awful at defending coastlines and only understands attrition warfare leaving Germany desperately short of men and equipment after a year or more fighting the USSR so that any landing is faced by only a few divisions with any reinforcements being taken from the Eastern Front and extremely worn down (usually only 50% equipment).
In that state, Britain with Australian, Canadian, South African and New Zealand forces can easily take back France. And if troops from the Raj aren't fighting the Japanese and they come to Europe, it becomes far worse for the German situation.
... I've watched way too many of these time lapses.
So Lend lease still happened I guess
Does this simulation take into account policies like American lend lease? Most of why the soviets were able to hold off the Germans and beat them back and why d-day even happened is from American resources.
"Most of why the Soviets were able to hold off the germans and beat them back"
No most of that is because A: the german logistics were even worse than the Russian logistics in the modern invasion of Ukraine. And B: the germans had fewer tanks than the Soviets and even less oil to make the tanks actually move.
"And why D day even happened is from american resources." Most ships and planes used in the d day landings were British. 66% of warships, 75% of landing craft, around 50% of the aircraft (which considering the British and Americans weren't the only ones involved means it was the biggest contribution because there was also Canadian aircraft).
The importance of lend-lease is completely overstated in western history. The Soviets received 84% of the aid after they had already won at Stalingrad and Kursk. The aid was helpful in speeding up the end of the war. Without it, the Soviets, in all likelihood, would still have taken Berlin, albeit 12 to 18 months later. The American historian David M. Glantz points this fact out.
@@gregbeyer9507 Odd, as both Stalin and Zhukov disagreed with that assessment, both plainly attributing their victory to allied material support.
@@yoloswagtron6920 Politicians say things for many reasons. Research done by academics is far more legitimate than even Stalin or Zhukov's quotes.
@@gregbeyer9507 A mention of a single academic without any sourcing does not an argument make. I'll take the assessments given by the two men who knew best what was going on, thanks.
How do you make HOI4 timelapses? they look very interesting!
USA didn't give much help to Soviet Union in WW2
Germany didn't really come close to pushing as far into the Soviets as it normally does.
why was Turkey partitioned
looks like turkey joined a war and there was a peace deal, which is where italy took some of turkey and then the allies retook that territory
The A.I sucks so bad in this game. I mean ridiculously bad.
Italy lost the war in Greece With 0 help from the United States
and the 2000 years of Victory of our Roman Empire in them, huh, my friend? vietnan and afghanistan love you yankee
@@LRomano lmao imagine having to come up with a victory that happened 2000 years ago to cope with a loss that happened 80 years ago XD
Can you imagine if you find a world power to invade Egypt with France and Israel and run out of there when the USA told you to? , we killed 1 immortal being and dominated you lmao
Your name "British" is us I create hahahahaha
@@LRomano the suez was a diplomatic defeat, not a military one. Every major war Italy fights it loses, unless its using poison gas against african tribals.
In 1895, Ethiopia defeated Italy.
In ww1, the austro Hungarian empire, which itself was an incompetent military, held the italians at the battles of isonzo 11 times.
In ww2 9 french men defended point saint louis against 5000 italians. The italians lost 700 men before they finally won.
The British immediately captured 133,000 italians in operation compass. The name "erwin rommel" is the only name anyone bothers to learn for the axis side of the african front.
the italian army, which before the germans bailed it out had 25 divisions in albania going against 13 greek divisions , got pushed back into albania.
you dominated a bunch of disunited tribals 2000 years ago, whoopde fucking do. Wake me up when you can point to a war you won without your allies bailing you out or using poison gas in living memory.
Andromeda: wat if usa neutral in ww2
India: nothing
Japan Would've conquer all of East Asia and Australia..
"I don't know when the two types of poverty, will be understood as self inflicted, though it would have been nice, if it had happened when I was wealthy"
US effect in WW2 is exaggerated in current history.
You already know that this will be a *huge* bragging point for Brits and Churchill lovers alike for decades to come in this timeline lmao!
any nation: anything different
germany and finland: IS RUSKI TIME
I can only see the war happening like this if the Americans still sent supplies to these countries
2:15 french divisions don't mind us just squeezing past here
Lol France was unable to defeat Germany without US help and Churches was literally begging to US for help even Soviet Union was going to nuts without US support so if US remained neutral most likely Germany would have won.
Not that far from reality
What I think would have happend in the best case scenario for Nazi Germany is that D day never happens and they are able to hold back Soviets for a litlle longer, but Berlin still falls and Nazi's surrender there and then instead of retreating to France just like in our timeline (in this scenario im talking about Courland and Alps).
So France and Norway is handed over to Soviets and they establish a comunist puppet regime there. The Carnation Revolution in Portugal happens earlier and later on they overthrow Franco Spain and Switzerland into communsim aswell.
So basically hole of Europe would be communist with the exeption of UK, Ireland, Sweden and Finland and Europeans still would be living under communism.
After that it's unclear to say would Finland be invaded again or would they have been backed by the US later on. The same questiom could later on also go to the rest of free democratic countries.
In my games the sovietunion allways gets steamrolde by germany even on max strenghte level they bearly make it and writhout the allias they dommde
And china is under japanes control by late 1942
Fairly realistic ending
If US is a Neutral, Japan didn't take Philippines (because Philippines is a Commonwealth Republic under USA before)
It says in the first 5 seconds the US still fights Japan because they were attacked.
Even Stalin said at USSR wouldn't have beaten Nazis without USA's help USA for example gave or sold 14 million boots 400 thousand trucks 14 thousand planes and alot more to USSR
84% after soviets won Kursk and Stalingrad
@@missk1697 what?
without lend lease, Soviet union would've collapsed.
Stalin and Zkukov, Both admitted it several times after the war..
Soviet Didn't have a much of a chance Against Germany without foreign supplies
That decision never been on Americans but on Japanese...
nothing would be, nothing would change if Hitler was defeated, there would be freedom and joy, there would be no threats, there would be no nnato, there would be no hatred ...
wtf this peace, why occitania? why 2 germany if british conquer all the german territory
How does the UK survive without US aid? We had the lend lease act but eventually the US citizen would have asked to stop defending the ships and forcing UK to pay for the supplies
Possibly if the UK withdrew all its troops from the Far East and brought all ANZAC troops to Europe. Of course, that’s based on the US taking on and defeating Japan on their own (and thereby stopping invasions of India, south-east Asia and Australia). Also, the UK would be stronger if they didn’t have to supply the USSR and let the USSR take an even bigger hit before making their counter offensive.
It would be interesting to see how anyone could come to that conclusion. Since the British never got saved by the Americans. The Battle of Britain saved the British during WW2. Also, America gave no significant amount of support to Britain during the Battle of Britain (1940). America did not begin the lend-lease until long after the Battle of Britain was over (March 1941). Also, after the fall of France in early 1940, Hitler offered a peace deal to the British, which would allow the British to remain Independent of the Third Reich and keep their Empire. Following the German defeat in the Battle of Britain, Hitler cancelled Germany’s plan for invading Britain (September 1940) and turned on the USSR, along with more focus on the North Africa campaigns. The campaigns in North Africa and the USSR were primarily due to Germany’s desperate need for oil. However, Britain defeated the Axis forces at the Second Battle of El Alamein, and the Soviets defeated the Germans at Stalingrad (both without any significant aid or assistance from the USA). The defeats here meant Germany would never have had the opportunity to get the oil needed for winning the war. Therefore the USA did nothing that gave them the right to claim they saved the British during WW2.
Finland would be *HUGE* absolutely.
This just shows how WW2 was without vichy France being conquered
What tf?
@@simonbrok2785 bro it just shows that That this is WW2 without Vichy France being a thing
On the reality, USSR would not get any food from USA, and the allies no weapons, so Germany would surely win
Agreed, but this is not depicted in a game like HOI4
Germany does not magically have oil because the Soviets don't have food (which they could likely buy from someone else e.g japan). The germans lost because they didn't have oil, not because of soviet superiority in anything aside from that commodity.
Would the British/Soviets been as successful in WW2 without Lend Lease from the USA?
Obviously not.
But that part must not be said out loud
Ye so japan just sits there while UK and France alone create Normandy while fighting in Africa as well. Seems about right and realistic my ass
Just AI messed up China invasion badly, they should have it won and finished before they join ww2. But they were still fighting therewhen UK just landed on empty islands and won lol.
Is USA was neutral, the half soviet union where speak german now.
Dont forget the Axis and Japan was so strong, soviet and China where lost the war
You allow the US to defend against Japan, but you seem to forget that Germany declared war on the US, making America the defender against the Nazis. But you don't allow the US to defend?
germany only declared when they realized japan did
Well that was weird
Not much changes, since the US didn’t contribute much to the war effort in the form of boots on the ground compared to the USSR.
But they did contribute a lot to the war of resources without there resources the Allies would have lost
@@doger6531 The US still supplied recourses pre war declaration
@@doger6531 that’s a big claim tho. They did help of course, but I doubt Germany would have won in the end. Anyways, we can’t possibly know what the outcome would have been.
@@lordium1848 I mean it’s true I saw the stats and before the USA joined the war the economy’s and industry’s of the Allies and the axis were equal when the U.S. joined it went massively in favor of the allies also Stalin himself said without the Americans they would have lost he said the United States is a country of machines without the machines we received via lend lease we would have lost the war and other Soviet officials said the same and America was giving more lend lease to Britain than the USSR and this was just a small island with 40 million people compared to a big 160 million people in the USSR so without there lend lease to the island… well it wouldn’t have ended well
@@cringe7391 not as much and it would have stopped for sure if they hadn’t gotten involved
I think if usa didn't involve than japan will take over Birtish Raj with the help of Azad Hind fauj and gift whole Indian subcontinent to Azad Hind fauj acording to their agriment
They would either become a puppet state or declare war.
Azad hind only had 45k soldiers. Japan couldn't even completely take over Myanmar, and not a single American troop was in Burma. At best without america they would fully take Burma and then get stuck on the brahmaputra.
4:34 You done fucked up A-A-Ron...
30 gennaio 2023 17:13 100%
Sul divano a casa mia
Giorno 83 dell' anno scolastico 2022/2023(escludendo festività e weekend)
Lunedì
Sveglia 6:20
Ieri sera pizza rucola, bresaola e grana da nonno
Ieri stato al campetto di Premariacco e vinto il torneo con Kyle e Vinci
No Blasutig quindi usciti prima e andati in palestra
Not seen is Japan massacring Asia
Japan only ran rough shod through the Pacific because the US implemented "Plan Dog". We fought a defensive war in the Pacific giving priority to the war in Europe. If the US was able to concentrate all of it's forces and war material production in Asia Japan would have been contained much sooner.
Japan got bogged down in both China and Burma without american assistance in those regions. The only places they were able to take over were the american occupied phillipines (funny how the so called super hero of the ww2 couldn't defend an island chain bigger than the uk), Malaysia and the Dutch east indies whose colonial government in the Netherlands had already been conquered by Germany.
@@mappingshaman5280 almost like it's hard to defend against a surprise attack from an attacker who's thousands of miles away from you in a war you didn't anticipate
@@siyacer america did anticipate a war with japan though, why do you think none of the Pacific fleets aircraft carriers were at pearl harbour?
@@mappingshaman5280 It's funny how the US military was ranked 16th in the world at the start of the war (Portugal was ranked higher). Why didn't France and the UK ask Portugal to win the war? Why didn't they just win the war before it started?
They were the world's largest militaries at the time but when Germany invaded Poland they fought a phoney war for 8 months allowing the Germans to build their forces. Let's look at a quote from the wiki article on the "Sitzkrieg".
"At the Nuremberg trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks."
31 luglio 2022 16:29
Nel letto
Domenica
Sveglia alle 11
Riso con salsiccia da nonno
Without the U.S. fighting Germany the war would definitely have dragged on maybe 2 yrs longer. But the outcome would be the same with Germany losing. Germany just runs out of soldiers.
From what I see, you're saying the war would have ended pretty much the same with/without the U.S., which is ridiculous. The U.S. beat the best army (Germany) and best navy (Japan) on the planet, at the same time, and at opposite ends of the globe. They had help or course, but without their intervention the world would be a much different place right now.
Nope, it was the red army that broke the Solun front and went to Berlin walking. America was great in Pacific thought but I don't agree with nuclear Bombing of Japan
@@angelina6543 If you haven't already, then you should listen to Dan Carlin's Logical Insanity. He discusses the morality of the atomic bombings of Japan. You can't find it on TH-cam, but it's on the Internet Archive. It's either episode 42 or 43, I can't remember.
What mods do you ise
What song is playing in the second half?
Why are there always European countries in the African continent?
Damn the peace deal
Why was that ending so weird
Can you tell me how to see those flags in the battlefield?
muy lejos del escenario hipotetico sobre si los Estado Unidenses se mantubieran neutrales, ya que los sovieticos hubieran caido y Gran Bretaña se hubiese aislado quedandose solo en una guerra perdida.
Any way was ussr strong enough in the end strong r than brit Us. Ang ger. Together. And beat japannese all so.
Yep the Soviet Union didn't needed American Backup .
Да Сталинграда не дошли они по вашему?
One on one Germany could have destroyed the USSR
What HOI3 mod is this?
FPS map
Nationalist Spain was neutral
🙂
Пизда была бы Великобритании, а не победа.
the italian ai is so bad ;-; its a handicap that usa didnt join and now they are still losing
Afghanistan is laughing at the American defeat to this day, it will help when the Ukrainians where the Americans are bad there
Germany lost first lmao
in the end the us did what it always has done: supply the allies with production
Credit to Domweasel for the comment:
Soviet industry outproduced Germany though out the war. They built 35,000 T-34-76s and 23,000 T-34-85s. The Germans produced just 5700 Panzer IIIs and 8500 Panzer IVs throughout the entire war and German generals like Guderian, Jodl, Kleist and Manstein all declared the T-34 to be vastly superior. The Germans built 1000 Tigers; the Soviets built 3000 IS-2s.
Remove American materials delivered to the USSR and you still have the Soviets producing over twice as many tanks as the Germans did. The same was true for aircraft; the Soviets replaced all the aircraft they lost in 1941 (More planes than the entire Luftwaffe) and by the end of '42; outnumbered the Luftwaffe 3 to 1. Remove lend-lease aircraft from Britain and the USA, and the advantage is 2 to 1.
And of course there was oil. The USSR had the Caucasus oilfields while Germany was reliant on Romanian and synthetic oil, leaving them drastically short throughout the conflict. German aircraft were frequently limited in how many sorties they could fly a day by the availability of fuel; something the Soviets never had to worry about.
What American lend-lease did was speed up the Soviet victory. The massive advances they made after Kursk into Ukraine and the huge success of Operation Bagration in '44 would have been impossible without the legions of Detroit-built trucks the Soviets used to transport men and supplies. While the German primary transport vehicle was the horse and cart, the Soviets had tens of thousands of American lorries ferrying what they needed while they rebuilt the railway lines. Without these vehicles, their offensives would have been far more modest.
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj Remove American materials and a huge number of men sent to the front have to stay and work in the factories and work the farms. No matter how you slice it the soviets DON'T produce near as many tanks, guns and planes AND they are woefully undermanned if they get no lend-lease from America. They would NOT enjoy the material advantage they did without the USA.
@@tremedar I really love how you just ignored the stats and the incorporated the idea which i just proved was wrong. This is exactly why ive grown to dislike nationalism in the US because its not like the normal good nationalism or patriotism that you see in europe and other countries such as the phillippines.
A lot of americans are "nationalistic" (reminds me of nazism ngl) to the point where they will over play everything and pretend their country is perfect aswell as claim credit for things they didnt do.
Fact is, the US equipment (especially trucks) definitely helped the Soviets and made the war end quicker, however the Soviets would have won no matter what since they simply were too powerful.
The germans had awoken a collossus beast of production and manpower the US couldnt even match.
I myself am swedish, and by nationality Russia has always been our arch nemesis like many nations so i have no reason to lie.
Respect other countries in the areas they are good at and dont lie about the areas your own country is bad at.
Delusion is thinking that the US impacted the course of ww2.
Germany would have lost even if the US didnt enter at all, however the US definitely helped a shitton, take pride in that, but do not lie.
If not for the soviets, we would have lost the war and europe aswell as the US would be speaking German.
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj ... And both Britain, and the Soviets would've starved to death, would have no material support, no trucks, Britain wouldn't have an Airforce and several thousand tanks, Arty, and more......
@@AnonyMous-ql9nj False? Don't you fujcking realize that the US provided more support than any other country during ww2? Sure, the Soviets out-produced the Germans... but their Equipment was total shit and prone to breaking down: Without US Supplies, like spare parts, and food (As well as clothing, boots, equipment, guns, and more bullets than anyone thought possible to produce...)... You severely overestimate IRL ww2, especially the Soviets, without American support...
Really?
Amazing how Germany always loses!
UK legit carried.
what is it with the ai and Octavia
how did u not allow them? did u use a command?
he said it was a mod
I think because uk is democracy he want to reduce the world tension by releasing
The Soviet Union would have conquered all of Europe.
I doubt USSR would have lasted for more than a year without lend lease from the US.
Who asked?
@@missk1697 The Soviets didn't ask, they repeatedly begged the Allies for help lmao
2:53 If the USA is neutral, why is there american troops in japan..?
remember America out produced every other allied country on earth in ww2, including the soviet union. America also supplied the soviet union quite a lot. just because the soviets made up a large portions of those who died doesn't mean they necessarily contributed that much proportionally.
American materiel, British intelligence and Soviet blood.
But you can only make money from materiel...
3 words.
Fragile national ego.
@Gilyazova A
Same year Britain finished paying its war debts to the USA. Financially hamstrung the UK so badly that the Empire was abandoned and many African colonies were pretty much left to fend for themselves with no proper transferal of power resulting in many dissolving into bloody, prolonged civil wars.
@G A You are correct, but you do forget that most (Estimates range from 70 to 90%) of the material worth given by the US was forgiven... Also, I'm pretty sure Russia and Britain both agree that they'd rather be in debt than controlled by the Nazis